U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD versus CHANDRA SHEKHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 585 · Decided: 05-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 585 : 2024 INSC 210
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad 
v. 
Chandra Shekhar And Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 3855 of 2024)
05 March 2024
[Surya Kant* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
High Court, if justified in  quashing the acquisition in respect of the 
Khasra on the ground that the tenure holders were not accorded 
opportunity to submit objections against the proposed acquisition 
in accordance with s. 29 of the UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad 
Adhiniyam, 1965.
Headnotes
UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 – s. 29 
– Issuance of pre-acquisition notice to tenure-holders – 
Requirement of – Public notice issued by the Board regarding 
Housing Scheme, however no notice served on respondents 
who claimed to be tenure holders but served in favour of other, 
who cliams to be the tenure-holder – High Court quashed 
the acquisition in respect of Khasra on the ground that the 
respondent-tenure holders were not accorded opportunity 
to submit objections against the proposed acquisition in 
accordance with s. 29 resulting in denial of the valuable right 
of objections available to them, and non-observance thereto, 
vitiates the acquisition qua the plot – Correctness:
Held: The 1965 Act mandates issuance of a pre-acquisition notice to 
such individuals whose land/property falls within the purview of the 
proposed Scheme – The Board, at best, could have claimed deemed 
or substantial compliance of audi alteram partem rule provided that 
Khasra of respondent was expressly notified in the public notice but 
those were conspicuously missing – No individual notices served 
on the respondents since they were not recorded as tenure-holders 
of the subject land immediately before the issuance of a notice u/s. 
29 – In the absence of any public or individual notice proposing to 
acquire Khasra  the respondents were denied an effective opportunity 
to submit objections to oppose the acquisition in question – Impugned 
586
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
judgment holding that the acquisition process qua the Khasra 
stands vitiated on account of non-compliance with the prescribed 
procedure, not interfered with – Furthermore, the tenure-holders/
owners of Khasra was still under the acquisition process when 
2013 Act came into force, thus,  entitled to be paid compensation in 
accordance with s. 24(1) of the 2013 Act – Appropriate Government 
to dispense with the procedure contemplated under Chapter II of 
the 2013 Act since the acquired land has already been utilized for 
the notified public purpose and would delay the assessment and 
payment of compensation to the true tenure holders – Prescribed 
Authority to accord an opportunity to submit objections u/s. 15 of 
the 2013 Act and, thereafter, pass an award as per s. 24(1) of the 
2013 Act – Whosoever is found entitled to the compensation after 
the decision in the title suit, the appellant-Board would release the 
compensation to them within the stipulated period – Right to Fair 
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation 
and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(1). [Paras 16, 17, 19-21]
List of Acts
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965; Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land 
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
List of Keywords
Acquisition; Tenure holders;  Opportunity to submit objections 
against the proposed acquisition; Pre-acquisition notice; Audi 
alteram partem rule; Non-compliance with the prescribed procedure; 
Compensation.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3855 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2015 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in WP No.97 
of 2014
Appearances for Parties
Vishwajit Singh, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Kumar Singh, Pankaj Singh, Ms. 
Vibha Bhat, Ms. Anamika Yadav, Advs. for the Appellant.
Sanyat Lodha, Lavam Tyagi, Shaurya Sahay, Shobhit Dwivedi, Advs. 
for the Respondents.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
587
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Chandra Shekhar And Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Surya Kant, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The appellant-U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (Board) is aggrieved 
by the judgment dated 07.10.2015, passed by a Division Bench of 
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, whereby 
acquisition in respect of Khasra No.673 (mentioned as plot No. 673 
in the impugned judgment), situated within the rev

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.